Kanwar: I like your stuff, but in this debate I am reluctant to agree with, particularly your brow-beating tone "What you consistently fail to realise..." That's quite a put-down.

 

I fly Orbx regions over UTX/GEX and I guess in the future FTX Global so I can escape from the EULA wars relating to the first two. I have this arrangement so I can fly out of an Orbx region and fly over something well advanced on the default. And often into other regional sceneries, some photoreal, and into airports made by a whole range of developers esp Aerosoft.

 

A bit of imagination plus a good investment policy gives a great world to fly in.

Kanwar: I like your stuff, but in this debate I am reluctant to agree with, particularly your brow-beating tone "What you consistently fail to realise..." That's quite a put-down.

 

Point taken - I wasn't intending that as a personal putdown. It's just that we hear the same things over and over again. The point I'm trying to drive home is that others such as myself don't fly in the environment that he does - I use a lot of Aerosoft and UK2000 airports, both of which have DX10 issues with textures. It isn't usable and unless developers make a commitment in future to support DX10 (which Aerosoft are currently adamant they will not) it won't takeoff.

 

The other thing is (and other members have noted) that we all darn well know he is against the use of P3D and I don't have the patience for his constant inhibitory posts on the subject. We need to be positive in this hobby and look to the future with optimism instead of finding every little possible hole to pick at which he comes into this forum time and again to do. Sorry Ian but I just ran out of patience with it - I respect that you are an older, wiser and more patient member of the community.

 

I'd also like to note that I personally don't use P3D - I am keeping an eye on its development and praying that it will become a good, solid alternative for our hobby moving forward. I think it has been a positive force here so far.

Point taken - I wasn't intending that as a personal putdown. It's just that we hear the same things over and over again. The point I'm trying to drive home is that others such as myself don't fly in the environment that he does - I use a lot of Aerosoft and UK2000 airports, both of which have DX10 issues with textures. It isn't usable and unless developers make a commitment in future to support DX10 (which Aerosoft are currently adamant they will not) it won't takeoff.

 

The other thing is (and other members have noted) that we all darn well know he is against the use of P3D and I don't have the patience for his constant inhibitory posts on the subject. We need to be positive in this hobby and look to the future with optimism instead of finding every little possible hole to pick at which he comes into this forum time and again to do. Sorry Ian but I just ran out of patience with it - I respect that you are an older, wiser and more patient member of the community.

 

I'd also like to note that I personally don't use P3D - I am keeping an eye on its development and praying that it will become a good, solid alternative for our hobby moving forward. I think it has been a positive force here so far.

 

You are so wrong about that, find a quote where I said that I was against the use of P3D, nowhere have I said such a thing, what I am against is the use of the license under false pretext, it is clear to me (and a few others) why I can't use P3D, if in your or other's book 2 + 2 = 5 more power to you and them, in my book it will always = 4.

 

As I said before, I also base my understanding in relation of PMDG press released (thread) where they explained why they are not on board with P3D, and THEY have a boat full of competent laywers specialized in that kind of debate AKA/ EULA to advise them about the meaning of the wording in P3D's EULA, I can't see a big developer like PMDG not wanting to make money out of their addons to be use with P3D if their lawyers told them that they could without ANY CONFUSION OR PROBLEMS what soever about the P3D's EULA.

I think 4 plus 4 actually equals 8, but i'm not much at math so could be wrong here.

 

P.s or is 4 plus 4 = 4 or 5 'pilot math'

 

What kinda guy reads an EULA?

 

Answer: The kinda guy that thinks 4+4=4. (couldn't resist)

 

Seriously give it a rest already.

I think 4 plus 4 actually equals 8, but i'm not much at math so could be wrong here.

 

P.s or is 4 plus 4 = 4 or 5 'pilot math'

 

 

LOL....I changed the numbers (broken fingers)....glad to know that's the only part you disagree with me... :Big Grin:

 

What kinda guy reads an EULA?

 

Answer: The kinda guy that thinks 4+4=4. (couldn't resist)

 

Seriously give it a rest already.

baby steps will only take you so far - until you come across something too wide to get over. Then you have to grow up.

 

I find it surprising that after all the complaints about Microsoft making FSX 32-bit there are objections to Prepar3d being 64-bit. That must surely be the way ahead?

what I am against is the use of the license under false pretext, it is clear to me (and a few others) why I can't use P3D

 

Alain, I guess you know this speaks volumes. Or maybe not. But I think I understand better.

 

You are not being excluded. It's almost a certainty that you're eligible for a developer's license if nothing else. "Developer" doesn't mean just PMDG, or any other big name that makes their living on their products. It also means the little guys in their computer rooms who figure things out, create enhancements, and even just submit bug reports. The only way you wouldn't qualify for a developer's license is if you're a pure consumer, and not in any way a producer.

 

You are not being excluded! That's a restriction you've placed on yourself, not one that has been placed on you from outside. "If you find yourself in pain, first make sure it's not because you're standing on your own foot."

 

"Not to be used for entertainment" doesn't mean "you're not allowed to enjoy this product." If the big name developers didn't enjoy what they did, they'd be off doing something a heck of a lot more lucrative.

 

If you really and truly can't find a reason to be included in the use of P3D, then it's better to move on to something else, and not try to convince everyone else that they aren't included either. This is said in kindness, not intending to confront, and I hope you'll take this entire post in the spirit in which it was written.

 

Hook

"Not to be used for entertainment" doesn't mean "you're not allowed to enjoy this product." If the big name developers didn't enjoy what they did, they'd be off doing something a heck of a lot more lucrative.

 

OK, but Lockheed Martin have stated that Prepar3D is being sold strictly for training purposes, not entertainment. Does he qualify for that?

OK, but Lockheed Martin have stated that Prepar3D is being sold strictly for training purposes, not entertainment. Does he qualify for that?

 

How does the developer's license fit that definition?

 

Hook

How does the developer's license fit that definition?

 

Hook

 

Because it's a developers license. It's for those who develop content for Prepar3D. There's also the professional license for training reasons, and the academic license for students who want to train at home.

No offence taken Hook, I always see this as a good discussion and nothing personal, does not matter if we agree or not.

 

I understand where you are coming from, but there is still a very good reason why a big player like PMDG decided turn their back on P3D...can you tell me what it is?

 

You know where this all started right? Do you remember who was so "ticked" because they got the shaft from MS when they turned their on 3PD when developing Flight....they (the ticked one) had to find a new way to sell their stuff as FSX could not get better because the code was locked, do I blame them...absolutely not, if I was working with LM I would I've make the wording of the licensing as confusing as possible myself (remember they already changed the wording once) to reach my own personal goal and make my share holders happy.

We may be missing the point. The EULA for the academic version might or might not allow us to use the license for "our" purposes. I don't want to touch that debate. However, there is no debate about the professional version. It clearly states that it be used "only for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment." If I go out and buy a $2500-$3000 computer and $1000+ of addons and pay $199 for a liscense to run it all it's because I'm doing something else other than jumping in a simulated airplane and pushing the throttle forward without having to look at a manual. If that's what I wanted to do I'd spend $50 and buy FSX or MS Flight. I'm using P3D because I want a realistic and stable environment so that I can learn and practice flight planning, ILS approaches, systems and all the other things that professional pilots learn. I have fun doing it, or I wouldn't bother. But so do most pilots when they learn or they'd be doing something else. Because I'm having fun and find it entertaining doesn't mean I'm excluded from buying the license. I'm using it to learn and to train, whether or not I'll use that training in the real world. MS still has the casual flightsim market with FSX and MS Flight, and Prepar3D has the professional market, those that want to actually take the time to learn how to properly fly an airplane.

...there is still a very good reason why a big player like PMDG decided turn their back on P3D...can you tell me what it is?

 

Of course I can. I've been following this since the early days when people on the forums posted the actual wording of the various agreements. If I could find those posts, I'd link to them. I'm pretty sure it's been on both Avsim and the LM forums. You'd think that would have put all the arguments to rest, but not in this community.

 

Do you remember who was so "ticked" because they got the shaft from MS when they turned their [backs] on 3PD when developing Flight...

 

The "Now that the cat is out of the bag" thread pretty much explains it all as regards to Flight and PMDG. It doesn't explain why other third party developer's names appear in the Fight credits. It MAY explain why some people are so against Prepar3d.

 

Hook

Who really cares !!! Does not seem like LM does, or even Microsoft. (yet)

 

Untill such time that P3D has a significant improvement over FSX, ( Not just for those not building large, multiscreen systems,) who really cares who uses it.

 

IF the day comes, that a new version of P3D is a significant improvement over FSX, and LM actively stop some people from obtaining it and using it, then Hobbyist Flight Simmers might have reason for debating this stuff.

 

Until then, you are all making it a self fulfilling prophecy. The more you talk about and, and highlight it, and basically rub LM nose in it, the more likely you are to loses the ability to ever own future versions P3D.

 

For gods sake, give it a rest, before you finally cause LM or MS to be forced to take some actions, that will be detrimental to all.